Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 21 December 2016
Parliament
Freezes
DR
JEKYLL & MR HYDE SYNDROME
By Sabina
Inderjit
Winter session of Parliament being a
washout was a foregone conclusion. The Opposition changing its stance on
discussion over demonetisation in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha too
didn’t come as a surprise. There simply wasn’t a cohesive strategy. Their
belligerence rubbing off on the Treasury benches at the fag end of the session
raised eyebrows, and worsened the deadlock. Exasperated Chairman and the
Speaker’s pleas were drowned in the full-throated sloganeering and adjournments
became the order of the day, every day. Is it worth even asking leaders of
parties and their members to introspect?
Rajya Sabha Chairman Ansari’s
valedictory address is worth more than a thought. He stated, and I quote: “I
had fervently hoped that I would not have to repeat what I said at the
conclusion of 221st Session in December 2010. My hope stands belied. Regular
and continuous disruptions characterised the session. The symbolism of
dignified protest, so essential for orderly conduct of parliamentary
proceedings, was abandoned. This deprived Members of the opportunity to seek
accountability of the Executive through Questions and discussions on matters of
public interest.
The prohibition in the Rules about
shouting slogans, displaying posters and obstructing proceedings by leaving
their assigned places, was consistently ignored by all sections of the House.
Peace prevailed only when obituaries were read. All sections of the House need
to introspect on the distinction between dissent, disruption and agitation.”
In the Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra
Mahajan had this to say: “I hope this coming year brings new hope and new
energy in our lives and we reflect with resolve that in the New Year we will
take conscious decision while using all Parliamentary instruments to forcefully
register our dissent and disagreement, if any, and will attempt to ensure less
disruptions.”
The anguish is understandable as
figures of the number of hours lost in disruption in both Houses is appalling,
to say the least. Rajya Sabha lost 86 hours (it sat for 22 hours), whereas the
Lok Sabha lost 91 hours and 59 minutes and sat only for 19 hours and 26
minutes. Is it right for the members to claim their attending fees of Rs 2000?
Can rules be changed that this amount be given only if the Houses run smoothly
for at least half the day? They earn and the taxpayer feels the pinch.
The other question to be asked is
why did the Opposition say one thing at the start and changed later? It started
the discussion on notebandi on the
first day, suspending the business in the Rajya Sabha. 14 members belonging to various parties took part in the
discussion, which lasted for over six hours. But the next day, the Opposition
sprung a surprise and demanded that Prime Minister Modi must be present during
the discussion.
The change in tack was for two
obvious reasons. One, the debate pretty much fell flat on the opening day
(admitted even by some members privately). Two, the Opposition counterparts in
the Lok Sabha were perturbed over their colleagues showing unusual enthusiasm
for starting the debate on the very first day. Instead there should have been hungama as per a combined strategy or
they should have followed suit.
While the Opposition had its say in
bits and pieces on the plight of the common man because of demonetisation, as
the Speaker was obliging after saying a no to their adjournment motion, the
parties in the Lok Sabha were too disjointed. Members of various parties moved
an adjournment motion seeking debate under Rule 56 the first phase. The next
phase they ‘showed magnanimity’ and were willing to have the discussion on Rule
184. The insistence on the two rules was it entailed voting even though the
Treasury Benches had a ‘brute majority”. What was it planning to achieve?
Apparently, if it succeeded, then the demand for the same could be raised in
the Rajya Sabha, where it enjoyed a majority! The Treasury benches obviously
wouldn’t relent.
However, two parties particularly,
the TRS and the BJD wanted discussion under Rule 193 and were willing to start,
the moment they got the go-ahead. Clearly showing the divide between them. Guess,
both have their reasons. The BJD had from day one welcomed the scheme and has
been seeking a special package from the Centre. Likewise, the TRS doesn’t want
to be seen as a hot-headed opposition. But unlike TDP in neighbouring Andhra it
is neither an ally. Best option is to be on the right side of the Government.
So the divided House in the third
phase, last week of the session, the 16 parties in the Opposition changed their
stand once again. “We are ready for an unconditional debate” i.e. without voting
and please start discussion they were heard urging the Chair. What made them
change their mind? Rahul’s googly – of having explosive evidence on Modi’s
‘personal corruption’. At a press conference he vociferously stated: “The Prime
Minister is personally terrified of me being allowed to open my mouth inside
the Lok Sabha because I have information about the Prime Minister that is going
to explode his balloon. And, I am not being allowed to speak in the House.” All
these weeks why didn’t he speak, and if he was not being allowed why didn’t he
let the nation know through his press conference?
This too has its intrigues. Already
besieged by defamation cases, he sought to speak in the House as he would enjoy
Parliament immunity. However, he claimed that as an MP he had to right to speak
in Parliament. The big question is when does Rahul want to corner Modi? Is he
going to wait for the Budget session in February to exercise his right as
people’s representative? Or will he do this closer to the biggest State
Assembly election, Uttar Pradesh. While it may have got people talking and
wondering, the fact is that the longer he takes his credibility will take a
further knock. He needs to decide the auspicious time.
In the midst of all the wrangling
for one upmanship between the Treasury and Opposition benches, members
surprisingly put on hold their differences. Just two days before the winter
session was ending, they decided to put lung power on hold briefly to pass the
long-awaited Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014. In the given time,
the Rajya Sabha cleared the Bill, with members keeping their points short so
that it could be sent to the other House. The Lok Sabha too complied and the
Bill was passed in one voice Ayes. At least one part of the electorate was
relieved.
Sadly, the camaraderie and rare
unanimity that was shown was short lived. Prompting Ansari in the Rajya Sabha
to say: “Don’t introduce a Jekyll and Hyde personality in the House...we have
been functioning well. Let’s continue ...you can’t have two personalities at
same time...I fail to understand...” He is certainly not the only one. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|